Michigan judge not in line with Colorado court that wanted Trump removed from ballot

[1miseryindex]

Michigan Supreme Court rejects attempt to remove Trump from ballot

Michigan's Supreme Court rejected an effort to keep former President Trump off the 2024 Republican presidential primary ballot.

www.foxnews.com

Comments

What's interesting about this.. a lot of things but something stands out to me

If you go down to "The 14th Amendment states..." in the article, it mentions what is required under this Amendment... and

LOL

seems it could apply to MANY politicians.

So if this ballot removal thing applies to Trump, and this judge says (I'm not finished reading yet, but it looks like she says) it does not, but if it is found eventually to apply to Trump, then:

it applies to MANY in Congress. Many in Congress have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and have VIOLATED it in spades

 

[Mac1958]

The Colorado decision was a bad idea.

An overzealous ruling.

 

[Rawley]

The Colorado decision was a bad idea.

An overzealous ruling.

So why is your party seeking the same result in over 14 states? LOL

 

[Mac1958]

So why is your party seeking the same result in over 14 states? LOL

Here we go again.

You don't know my politics.

 

[Rawley]

Here we go again.

You don't know my politics.

We all do. Stop pretending you are not a progressive that supports the Democrat party. It's embarrassing.

 

[1miseryindex]

So why is your party seeking the same result in over 14 states? LOL

Answer:

Because leftists LOVE

bad ideas

 

[Mac-7]

Here we go again.

You don't know my politics.

We know mac1958 voted for biden in 2020

 

[1miseryindex]

Check this out for laughs, Everyone:

(emojis and bolded added by yours truly)

Site:

Free Speech for People, which says it helped file the lawsuit (against Trump being on the ballot) in Michigan "on behalf of a diverse group of Michigan voters ," describes itself as a "national non-profit non-partisan organization."

LMAO



"We are disappointed by the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision," Ron Fein, its legal director, said in a statement...

"The ruling conflicts with longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent that makes clear that when political parties use the election machinery of the state to select... their candidates for the general election, they must comply with all constitutional requirements in that process [uh... except maybe that one about how state legislatures, not governors or anyone else, can set up times, places and procedures for elections. Pay no attention to that Article of the Constitution a few other Constitutional requirements!]

Comments

New word for the day, Boys and Girls (There are only 2 genders: Trust the science):

Can you spell IRONY?

LMAO

 

[1miseryindex]

Liberals are always lying.

One whopper they tell repeatedly is

We must save democracy

(they say this as they work to destroy it)

Be gone, Satan!

 

[Independentthinker]

Michigan Supreme Court rejects attempt to remove Trump from ballot

Michigan's Supreme Court rejected an effort to keep former President Trump off the 2024 Republican presidential primary ballot.

www.foxnews.com

Comments

What's interesting about this.. a lot of things but something stands out to me

If you go down to "The 14th Amendment states..." in the article, it mentions what is required under this Amendment... and

LOL

seems it could apply to MANY politicians.

So if this ballot removal thing applies to Trump, and this judge says (I'm not finished reading yet, but it looks like she says) it does not, but if it is found eventually to apply to Trump, then:

it applies to MANY in Congress. Many in Congress have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and have VIOLATED it in spades

Colorado made things up as they went along to suite their political agenda, to hell with the law.

 

[ColonelAngus]

The cult Is stacking up the losses. What a shame.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The Colorado decision was a bad idea.

An overzealous ruling.

Maybe. You may be right that it's over zealous, but I think much of the reactions are as well, along with people who believe Donald is still constitutionally eligible.

The key issue from my perspective is that neither the states nor the federal courts have any authority to judge whether someone is constitutionally eligible. The constitutional procedure is for the electoral college to vote, Congress counts those votes, and ONLY AFTER someone has achieved a majority of votes can Congress determine whether the prevailing individual meets the constitutional qualifications.

Ballot access is, of course, a different matter. Colorado can set whatever criteria it wants for granting ballot access. If they want to have a law that precludes someone from engaging in insurrection against the nation from ever gaining ballot access, they can do that. But that doesn't appear to be what they are saying here. If their basis for denying ballot access is based on the federal questions of whether 1) Jan 6 constitutes an insurrection and, 2) whether the disqualification clause applies to the Presidency, then that is where the CO court has overstepped.

The biggest problem in all of this is that, now that we've stepped upon that slippery slope of state ballot access prerogatives being the tool to prevent Donald from having a 2.0 term, we're likely to dive down the rabbit hole of many states regularly creating and amending laws that weaponize ballot access for partisan gain. And we really will look like Putin's Russia if we do that.

 

[Mac1958]

The biggest problem in all of this is that, now that we've stepped upon that slippery slope of state ballot access prerogatives being the tool to prevent Donald from having a 2.0 term, we're likely to dive down the rabbit hole of many states regularly creating and amending laws that weaponize ballot access for partisan gain. And we really will look like Putin's Russia if we do that.

Yes. That's my concern. Well that, and the fact that this move is essentially a bandaid to cover a much bigger problem: That our society would even consider choosing a person like this to "lead" it.

 

[1miseryindex]

Colorado made things up as they went along to suite their political agenda, to hell with the law.

because CO has been liberal for a long time and that's what libs do

disgusting as hell

I guess I should feel sorry for the libs because that's where they're going, apparently